DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The amendment to the abstract filed Aug. 25, 2025 is sufficient for the Examiner to withdraw the objection to the abstract of the disclosure.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner interprets a glass plate and glass plates different in size as the material worked upon by the apparatus.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
A first positioning means in claim 1 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), since there is insufficient structure recited to perform the recited functions in lines 9-21.
A second positioning means in claim 2 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), since there is insufficient structure recited to perform the recited functions in lines 2-7.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing area . . .configured to perform processing”, “unloading area . . .configured to unload the glass plate processed”, “conveyance mechanism configured to . . .sequentially convey the glass plate” in claim 1; “cutting device . . . that cuts”, “breaking device. . .breaks the edge of the glass plate”, and “grinding device . . .grinds the edge of the glass plate” in claim 4; “a first lifting mechanism that lifts the plurality of rollers”, “third moving mechanism that presses, in claim 5; and “vacuum mechanism that applies suction force” and “a second lifting device that lower the suction pad” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In claim 12, line 8, Applicant recites the term “the areas”, the Examiner interprets “the areas” as referencing “the areas above” in line 7.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error. In line 9 of claim 7, the term “. . . based on the first moving dimension determined” should be “. . . based on the determined first moving dimension”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the claims filed Aug. 25, 2025 to clarify the claims. Based on Applicant’s Remarks (pgs. 10-11), the Examiner acknowledges that “a first positioning means” and “a second positioning means” is disclosed in the written description. However, there are still 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues that are detailed below.
Claims 1 and 3-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 17-18, recites “a virtual line extending in the front-rear direction and being imagined based on an outermost edge” lacks clarity since it is unclear what additional limitation from the term “virtual”, Applicant is attempting to claim with the term “being imagined”. The Examiner suggests to clarify the claim by removing the term “being imagined” so the claims reads, “a virtual line extending in the front-rear direction based on an outermost edge . . .” Claims 3-15 depend from claim 1 and are also indefinite.
In claim 5, line 12, Applicant claims the term “the first side edge”, it is unclear to the Examiner which first side edge Applicant is referencing, since Applicant has recited “a first side edge” for a first glass plate, a second glass plate, and recites the one glass plate. The Examiner interprets “the first side edge” should be “a first side edge of the one glass plate”. Claims 6-11 depend from claim 5 and are also indefinite.
In claim 7, lines 4-8, Applicant claims “a first moving dimension in the width direction . . . is determined in accordance with a difference in dimension in the width direction of the one glass plate”, but it is unclear to the Examiner what defines “a difference in dimension” since a difference implies a comparison. Please clarify claim 7.
In claim 8, line 2, Applicant claims “the center line of the glass plate”, it is unclear to the Examiner which glass plate Applicant is reference. The Examiner interprets, “the center line of the glass plate” in line 2 should be “the center line of the one glass plate”.
In claim 8, line 6, Applicant claims “a front edge of the glass plate”, it is unclear to the Examiner which glass plate Applicant is referencing. The Examiner interprets, “a front edge of the glass plate” in lines 2 and 6 should be “a front edge of the one glass plate”.
In claim 8, lines 7-8, Applicant claims the term “the outermost edge located outermost in the width direction of the first side edge of the one glass plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This antecedent basis issue appears to be related to an antecedent basis issue in claim 5, line 12 discussed above for “the first side edge”. The Examiner interprets this limitation should be “an outermost edge located outermost in the width direction of the first side edge of the one glass plate”, as long as the interpretation for claim 5, line 12 is accurate. Claim 10, lines 5-6 and claim 11, lines 8-10 also claim the term “the outermost edge located outermost in the width direction of the first side edge in the width direction of the one glass plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim, and the antecedent basis is related to the claim 8, lines 7-8 antecedent basis issue. Please clarify claims 10 and 11. Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and is also indefinite.
In claim 9, lines 4-5, Applicant claims “a difference in dimension of the one glass plate in the front-rear direction”, but it is unclear to the Examiner what defines “a difference in dimension” since a difference implies a comparison. Please clarify claim 9. Additionally, the Applicant claims the term “the front edge of the one glass plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This antecedent basis issue appears to be related to an antecedent basis issue in claim 5, line 12 discussed above for “the first side edge”, and will be fixed as long as the interpretation for claim 5, line 12 is accurate.
In claim 11, lines 4-5, Applicant claims “a difference in dimension of the one glass plate in the front-rear direction”, but it is unclear to the Examiner what defines “a difference in dimension” since a difference implies a comparison. Please clarify claim 11.
Claim 14 claims “the at least two suction pads located in the cutting area”, but only references a suction pad in the cutting area in claim 12. While claim 13 claims at least two suction pads it is only recited as part of the conveyance mechanism and not related to the cutting area. Please clarify claim 14. Claim 14 recites the limitation “the cut”, but only recites in claim 4 the cutting device cuts (verb), which does not provide antecedent basis for a cut (noun). In claim 14, line 4, Applicant claims “the cut in the edge of the glass plate” and “the cut in the edge of the one glass plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Please clarify claim 14. Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and is also indefinite.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the front end" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Due to the excessive issues lack of clarity issues with the claims discussed above, and the claims being generally narrative and indefinite, please verify antecedent basis and clarify antecedent basis through the claims.
EXAMINER’S COMMENT - CLAIMS
There are no current prior art rejections for claims 1 and 3-15. A discussion of the prior art and prior art with reference to the claims can be found in the non-final rejection dated Feb. 24, 2025. The Examiner notes the allowable subject matter of claim 2, as discussed in the non-final rejection dated Feb. 24, 2025 was added to claim 1. However, there are 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues with claim 1 and the dependent claims. Once the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues are resolved, the Examiner will consider allowance of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LISA L HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741